Apologetics, Global warming, Main, z99
Leave a Comment

Is the climate-change fear-mongering starting to waver?

Last winter, Europe experienced a brutally cold winter Photo: Kiev, Ukraine Credit: Trey Ratcliff/Flickr/Creative Commons

Europe experienced a brutally cold winter this past year. Photo: Kiev, Ukraine Credit: Trey Ratcliff/Flickr/Creative Commons

In recent weeks, two major publications have dared to question one of the main tenants of man-made global warming — fear-mongering — predicting one catastrophe after another if we don’t reign in carbon emissions.

Of course, we refer it to today as climate change, but it started out as global warming. Many still wonder why the activists wanted this name change?

With the man-made climate change agenda largely driven by those on the left of the political spectrum, they have dramatically tried to shout down any dissenters.

But recently, scientists and others are showing a bravery to face the barrage of criticism that comes their way when they don’t fall in line with the basic beliefs of the climate-change agenda.

First it was an article in Scientific American that advised everyone to chill out because things are not nearly as bad as every one is screaming.

The most recent challenge involved two climatologists, Nic Lewis and Judith Curry, who wrote a peer-reviewed study stating the climate models the activists are using to proclaim the coming CO2 apocalypse are out of wack with reality.

Their article appeared in a major peered-reviewed climate publication, American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate. Though it has traditionally supported the man-made global warming agenda, this recent article suggests the publication is now willing to consider the other side to the debate. It also seems to be questioning the extreme rhetoric associated with the climate-change activists.

Of course, the computer models used to predict the disasters caused by man-made global warming are only as reliable as the people entering the data. In their study, Lewis and Curry compared the computer-model global warming temperature projections with the actual temperatures and found that they were out between 30% to 45%.

The two climatologists suggest that the concerns expressed by environmental activists are significantly overblown.

Lewis and Curry went on to say that even if nothing changes, world temperatures would be significantly below the targets set at the UN’s 2015 Paris Agreement that requires countries to make huge cuts in carbon emissions largely achieved through damaging carbon taxes and massive government subsidies.

Lewis stated:

Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than central computer model-simulated levels projected by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and highly unlikely to exceed that level.”

In the Scientific American article written by the director of Science Writings for the Stevens Institute of Technology, author John Horgan looked at articles written by man-made global warming activists who are trying to reign in the extremism being promoted by their cause.

Horgan cited, The Conquest of Climate, an article written by Will Boisvert who is considered by many as a left-wing activist. In his article, Boisvert says that people need to take a deep breath because things are not going to be anywhere near as bad as everyone is predicting.

He even mocked a Newsweek article that cites a study printed in the Lancet that man-made global warming would result in a half a million deaths by 2050 due to a lack of food.

Boisvert wryly points out that same study said that improvements in agricultural practices will “dwarf the effect of climate change” and contrary to what the alarmists are saying the poorest will be the biggest benefactors of these improvements.

In other words, our ability to handle climate changes is improving faster than any effects that CO2 may be having on the climate. People can adapt. This combined with Lewis and Curry who says things are not near as bad as people are projecting suggests it is all being overblown.

If this is true, the question we have to ask is why?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.